Smt O.Krishnaveni v. Yadhi Reddy

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.721 OF 2019 DATED : 07.02.2020 Between :

Smt O. Krishnaveni W/o.Late K. Ramesh, Age : 48 yrs, Occu : Catering Contractor, H.No.6-2-194, Subashnagar, Nizamabad ..... Petitioner And Yadi Reddy S/o. Not Known, Aged : Major, Joint Collector/Chairman, DPC, Kamareddy Town and District .....Respondent The Court made the following:

- 2 - HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.NAVEEN RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.721 OF 2019 ORDER :

W.P.No.3587 of 2019 was allowed setting aside the earlier proceedings and the matter was remitted to the Joint Collector/Chairman, District Purchase Committee, Kamareddy. He was directed to consider the explanation offered by the petitioner, in response to the show cause notice, by dealing with each of the item of explanation and to pass orders. Further direction was issued that in case, explanation offered by the petitioner is convincing, she should be restored as Catering Contractor. Alleging violation of the said directions, this contempt case is filed.

2.

Along with the counter affidavit, deposed by Sri P.Yadi Reddy working as Joint Collector, the proposal submitted by District Coordinator, TSWREIS, Kamareddy in File Rc.No.A/10/DCO/KMR/2018-19 dated 24.04.2019 and the enclosures were filed. From a reading of this document, it is seen that proposals were submitted for approval of the Joint Collector and he has signed the same. A detailed note was also drawn up on each of the issue raised by the petitioner and the same were also signed by the Joint Collector. A copy of the note runs from page Nos.69 to 73. Thereafter, the principal of the College passed orders on 26.04.2019 and communicated to the petitioner.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that the direction issued was to the Joint Collector, whereas he has not taken decision, but decision was taken by the Principal of

- 3 - the College. Therefore, it would not amount to compliance of the directions issued by this Court.

4.

It is seen from the proceedings of the Principal that there is a reference to the order passed by this Court and the decision taken by the Chairman on 24.04.2019 and then he records his own reasons on various contentions urged by the petitioner. However, from the document at page Nos.69 to 73, it is seen that each of the objection filed by the petitioner were considered and decision was taken by the Joint Collector. The only deformity noticed was that instead of communicating decision in the form of proceedings from his office, the Joint Collector forwarded the decision to the Principal and Principal in turn takes the decision and communicates to the petitioner.

5.

Prima-facie, the exercise undertaken cannot be said as deliberate and willful disobedience of the directions issued by this Court, warranting initiation of contempt proceedings. 6.

Contempt Case is accordingly closed. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies as available in law, against the decision of Joint Collector, if so advised. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ P.NAVEEN RAO,J 7th February, 2020 Rds